The Trudeau government’s decision to end its quest for electoral reform was front and centre at the final debate in the race for the Liberal nomination in one of the country’s safest seats for Liberals — Ottawa-Vanier.

It was standing room only in the main hall of the Sandy Hill Community Centre on Thursday night for the debate winding up the hotly contested nomination race, which has seen the riding association’s membership swell to about 7,200.

Those members will vote on Feb. 5 to nominate a candidate for a byelection that will be held to replace the late Mauril Belanger, the eight-term MP who died this past August.

Debate topics ranged from new community development to helping minorities succeed to the suddenly controversial issue of electoral reform — the subject of the largest number of questions from the audience. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to break his campaign promise on electoral reform had the candidates struggling to toe the party line.

“Many of us share the belief that there are many ways we can share our democractic system,” said Moyer. “Certainly I hope we have continued conversation about this. I also think we need to be recognizing other issues, as this is not the main thing that came up at the door.”

Akbari echoed Moyer: “We should be doing a better job and we should be bringing electoral reform back and have a conversation about it. But I agree that we haven’t heard a lot at the door about this.”

Francis LeBlanc tried a different tack, suggesting that voters be asked about their electoral system preferences in the next general election. The former MP later backtracked, saying his suggestion needs some work.

“The idea that I shared with you hastily, I’d like to develop much further. Because I think it would be a way of letting the people choose electoral reform, not the politicians.”

In their closing statements, many of the candidates expressed a desire to take truck traffic off King Edward Avenue and to ease the economic inequality in the riding, which is home to some of the poorest citizens in the Ottawa region and some of the richest.

Fortier urged the riding to remember it’s 2017 and change its pattern of voting in male candidates.

“Liberal men MPs have held this riding for 88 years. I believe it’s time to elect a woman. It’s the only way to reduce the gender gap in Parliament and I hope you agree.”

I have to confess, I thought they were serious, and still do. I just think they were showing their callow, wet-behind-the-ears ambition in a most unbecoming way, and they had no idea of the practical difficulties that stood in the way.

Its either that they had no idea what the process would involve or they knew exactly what it involved and those roadblocks allowed them to opt out of something they didn't want to do anyway but knew would go over very well with the left.

The previous government had a plan (s) for Senate Reform and went to the SCC to determine the limits that the Commons had on affecting change on the Senate.

This government had no plan for electoral reform and seemingly made no effort to head off any legal challenges that would have most certainly followed.

Bugs wrote:

Honestly, can you see the Liberals doing that? Can you see any party doing it?

Fear of both proportional representation, including the possible emergence of fringe or even alt-right parties, and a potentially divisive national referendum led Justin Trudeau's government to abandon his promise of electoral reform, according to a senior Liberal source.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politic.....-1.3963533

I take it as confirmation that Trudeau's fantasy/plan was all about keeping power on the left of Canadian politics forever. It's simply that he's so naive about practical politics that he had no idea of the difficulties.

The down side is that it wasn't the opposition that stopped it, it was people insde the Liberal Party who felt they might gore their own ox.

OTTAWA -- The Liberal government broke its promise to reform Canada's electoral system, some of its MPs are admitting.

Adam Vaughan, who represents Toronto's Spadina--Fort York riding, says he understands the disappointment of those who thought the government would change how Canadians elect their members of Parliament.

Asked by Evan Solomon, host of CTV's Question Period, whether the government's decision not to pursue electoral reform was a broken promise, Vaughan allowed that it was.

"We made a commitment and we are not fulfilling that commitment. That's how it gets described," he said, in an interview to air Sunday on CTV News Channel.

"I think we'll be held accountable for it and that's as it should be."

Vaughan was one of a number of Toronto-area Liberal candidates who beat veteran New Democrats in the 2015 election. Earlier this week, New Democrat MPs expressed anger over the progressive voters they lost due to the Liberal electoral reform promise.

"When the course is changed as quickly as it was, I understand the frustration and anger," Vaughan said.

But he maintained there are more important priorities than electoral reform for Parliament to consider.

No consensus: Gould

"I think that part of the honesty and accountability of this process is saying look, we have a very, very complex set of issues in front of us in Parliament right now," Vaughan said, listing conditions on reserves, the fentanyl crisis and the need for a national housing strategy and an anti-poverty strategy, as well as a rapidly shifting international stage.

"We have got to put together an agenda for the legislature that makes sense and gets through the Parliament. There's only so many priorities you can get through Parliament at a time and we made a judgement call," Vaughan said.

Vaughan isn't the only Liberal MP to be open about the reversal, though he went further than Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould.

"I will not be pursuing electoral reform in my mandate," she told Solomon when asked whether the Liberals broke their promise.

"The government is not going through with that decision."

Gould says the supplemental reports by the MPs on the special parliamentary committee studying electoral reform show there was no consensus on which type of reform the parties wanted. The main set of recommendations said the government should hold a referendum on proportional representation.

"The NDP and the Greens have a supplemental report that says we don't want a referendum, we want proportional representation. So that's a really important distinction here.... We actually have to look at all of the facts and we have to look at where all of the parties are coming from," Gould said.

'Facts didn't change'

Other Liberals were more apologetic.

Parkdale-High Park MP Arif Virani, who holds a Toronto seat after defeating a long-time New Democrat MP, wrote an extensive Facebook post Friday detailing the reasons for the decision.

"We made a commitment to Canadians during the 2015 campaign, a commitment we are no longer able to keep. For that decision, we may be held accountable in our system of Parliamentary Democracy. That is the way our system works -- that is your right as a voter," Virani wrote.

Vancouver North MP Jonathan Wilkinson posted a three-page letter to his constituents.

"I and my colleagues should not be, and are not, pretending that we have not moved away from a campaign commitment," he wrote. "We have. This letter is intended to provide an explanation as to why and to ensure that folks understand that such a decision was not taken lightly."

Former NDP leader Ed Broadbent says leaders should change their minds when the facts change.

"But in this case, the facts didn't change. Quite the contrary... during the process, the prime minister himself kept repeating he would bring in a new system," Broadbent said.

Further, Broadbent says, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau shouldn't have let a minister deliver the news the government was breaking a key election promise.

"The prime minister I think should have done that himself, in the House, and he might have -- he might have -- been able to persuade Canadians that there were other priorities," he said.

It was a promise that never should have been made. Virtually every alternative to FPTP lends its self to making political parties official. It is important to preserve the system which allows us to vote for a local person to be our MP rather than having some back room party functionary in Ottawa choose my MP from a list of people who have probably never even heard of Saskatoon.
The only alternative that would actually work would be to have run-off elections in every constituency where the leading candidate did not receive a majority of votes. Imagine how much that would cost.
Trudeau's promise was stupid, but at least he had courage to admit it.

It was a promise that never should have been made. Virtually every alternative to FPTP lends its self to making political parties official. It is important to preserve the system which allows us to vote for a local person to be our MP rather than having some back room party functionary in Ottawa choose my MP from a list of people who have probably never even heard of Saskatoon.

This is a very good and often overlooked point.

We have 338 elections on election day in Canada.
Every community sends someone to represent their community to Ottawa.
The nomination battles are fierce because the best interests of the riding are at stake, and ultimately if that representative does not look out for the best interest of the riding they have to face the electorate.

Who do I get as my MP off a list?

Are we going to play the same game that we do with the Senate?

If the individual was born in my region but hasn't lived here for 30+ years that somehow qualifies them?

Right now if an MP votes for legislation that is bad for the community but good for the party they stand a good chance of not being re-election

Under PR, If they prove to be loyal to the party over the electorate are they rewarded by being moved up the list?

PR is terrible for individual democracy and good for political parties.

Joanna Smith, The Canadian Press
Published Tuesday, February 14, 2017 4:07PM EST
Last Updated Tuesday, February 14, 2017 5:57PM EST

OTTAWA -- The Liberals have defeated a motion that accused the government of misleading Canadians on electoral reform and demanded they apologize for their broken promise.

The motion put forward in the House of Commons by the New Democrats was rejected 175 to 129 Tuesday.

"Believe me when I say this ain't over," NDP MP Nathan Cullen said Tuesday after the vote.

"Canadians expected more from this prime minister. They believed that he was going to be different, and this betrayal of such a black-and-white promise shows him to be, unfortunately, more of the cynical same," said Cullen, the NDP critic for electoral reform.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau promised in the Liberal campaign platform and in the subsequent speech from the throne to change the way Canadians cast their ballots in time for 2019.

The Liberal government abandoned that idea earlier this month, arguing their consultations on the issue did not produce a consensus on whether to change the status quo, as promised, or what should replace the current first-past-the-post voting system.

During question period in the House of Commons Tuesday, Cullen pressed Trudeau for an apology.

"Canadians voted for a change from a government that had been unable to deliver on economic growth for the middle class, had been unable to deliver the kind of vision for this country that Canadians needed," Trudeau replied.

The Conservatives, the Bloc Quebecois and Green party leader Elizabeth May voted with the New Democrats on the opposition day motion.

Democratic Institutions Minister Karina Gould acknowledged some younger voters were disappointed with the Liberals' choice not to go ahead with electoral reform.

"I was very heartened over the past couple of weeks to see people register their disappointment, or to engage, because I think it's a hallmark of our democracy that we can both agree and disagree equally as peacefully and have those conversations," Gould said in the Senate chamber during question period Tuesday.

That was in response to a question from Independent Sen. Marilou McPhedran, who said she had seen "a surge of anger, disappointment, heartbreak and . . . a distinctive rise in cynicism returned to the generation" on social media as a result of the decision to give up on the pledge. She wanted to know what Gould was doing to address it.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot vote in polls in this forumYou cannot attach files in this forumYou can download files in this forum